Re: Destroyed

> One copper told me years ago the reason they had not implemented a computerized system was because paper is tangible - it's simply harder to lose a piece of paper

His experience of the losability of pieces of paper is different to mine.

Even if you agree that paper is harder to lose, it's also harder to find. If you're trying to find out about a particular firearm, it's not a lot of use to know that the information you seek is on an unlosable piece of paper in one of 50 filing cabinets spread across the country.

We seem to have learned to store quite a lot of important information on these new-fangled computers over the last half-century, without the needing the backup of "paper forms." Why should firearms licences be any different?

Bring back the MS Office paperclip!

Re: Please

I'll apologise to Mr Asshat when you've finished apologising to the whole population for describing them as the "unwashed masses."

And I'd be happy to call him a wanker to his face, were he not skulking in an embassy at considerable expense to the taxpayers of the UK and of Ecuador. Maybe, when he gets out, he could get a gig presenting this show:

To be fair, Döpfner wasn't any better on the other side of the argument. At one point he suggested that sites should be ordered on the basis of "traffic". Even setting aside the point that search engines don't actually know how much traffic a given site has, it's a colossally bad idea.

Since Google must have a colossal amount of traffic, such a change would probably cement their place at the top of the rankings forever. And woe betide any new entrant to any market - no traffic no ranking, and no ranking no traffic.

I don't think Google is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but until its critics pony up with:

a) Actual search terms that they find unsatisfactory

b) A set of search results that they think preferable, with the reasons why

Hmmm...

Apparently, according to most of the people on here, environment scientists are corrupt - willing to falsify their results, interpret them in bizarre ways, and god knows what else in return for large sums of money.

The Oil industry has truly colossal amounts of money, way more than any possible green conspiracy could muster.

Why does the Climate Change message make any headway at all, when the oil guys could simply buy up all the scientists?

Also, in my experience, it's very much easier to get heard (and to get funded) when you're telling people what they want to hear. So the message "Climate change isn't happening ... or if it is happening, it isn't our fault ... or if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it" should be easier to deliver than its opposite. That being the case, it's odd that the opposite side is in the ascendency.

Unless, of course, it's because that's the way the vast majority of the evidence points...

If you've been training with and using ball X over a long period to hone your skills, it's clearly going to affect your performance if you have to start using ball Y for a particular tournament - even if its performance is objectively better.

Why can't FIFA establish a solid, detailed specification for footballs that is applied and stuck to world-wide over a long period, rather than coming up with a new "improved" ball every four years? It's almost as if the people in charge were quietly being paid wads of cash by sports equipment manufacturers to improve their sales figures.

"Smartwatches and wearable devices have proved the key theme of the show, with lots of folk jumping on the bandwagon to try and get a piece of the action early, now well-known birds like Fitbit and Pebble have been enjoying."

Re: He got something right!

Insurance concerns

I'm not sure the danger of insurance companies being able to buy your DNA profile is relevant.

When you sign up for health insurance (or any type of insurance for that matter), you're asked to provide any information that might have a bearing on the risk. If you fall ill, and it becomes apparent that you knew about a risk but didn't tell your insurer - surely that's going to put your claim under some jeopardy?

ahem

I'd never heard of Ms Palmer, but this does seem to be a fuss about nothing.

According to your article, her original advert 'offered only "beer and hugs" as compensation for [the musicians'] labour'. If the musicians in question were happy to sign up on that basis, they can hardly complain when that's what happens at the end.

"Palmer initially thought she could get away with not paying her fellow artists" - presumably because she advertised for artists who would work for (next to) nothing, and people came forward as a result.

I'm totally against working for nothing, or even for beer and hugs, but I put that principle into practice by never agreeing to work on that basis. If others want to do so, more fool them.

The other side

Speaking for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Worms, what about the massive bloodbath perpetrated by birds on my little wiggly friends? Many millions of them carried off by birds (especially the early variety) every day.

Innocent only if you pay

One element of this miserable scheme that you've overlooked is the cost of appealing against an accusation of copyright theft - set out in this BBC story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18594105

Essentially, if you've been accused of being a freetard, you have to pony up £20 if you want to clear your name.

THIS is what I object to in the whole copyright protection malaise - the denial of natural justice. If IP theft is a crime just like any other, which I quite agree it should be, then it should be dealt with in the same way: collect evidence, prove somebody guilty in court, apply a suitable penalty if they're found guilty.

The problem with the DEA is its attempt to circumvent all that tedious "due process" stuff, and jump straight to punishment and invite you to prove yourself innocent afterwards (for a fee).

According to the BBC, one of the alleged infringements is "Google Maps ability to make different information available at different levels of zoom". I think Google might point to every map ever drawn by anyone, ever, by way of prior art.

Erm...

That's the right story, but the wrong "professional". It's Martin Shaw who blocked the show for so long:

"Martin Shaw was publicly critical of the series during its production, feeling he was playing a one-dimensional character in a one-dimensional show. Several years after the series ended London Weekend Television was contractually obliged to re-negotiate repeat fees with the lead actors. Unwilling to accede to Martin Shaw's demands, plans for further repeat screenings on the UK's ITV network had to be withdrawn, leading to Lewis Collins expressing his anger towards Shaw in an interview for the British press. However, Shaw eventually agreed to UK satellite screenings going ahead, although supposedly only after being made aware that Gordon Jackson's widow, actress Rona Anderson (who guested in Cry Wolf), was suffering financial difficulties."

That's from Ickypedia, but I remember seeing Collins interviewed on the subject (on Wogan I think) and telling much the same story. Makes more sense that way round - Collins hasn't really done anything since, Shaw was trying to build a reputation as an acTOR.

First, the news...

Fact check

> The Google toolbar, for instance, collects urls used to calculate Mountain View's famous PageRank.

No it doesn't.

Google compile a list of URLs by just crawling the web, and calculates PR by analysing the links between them. The toolbar isn't involved, or required.

What the toolbar *does* do is tell you the PR of the page you're viewing. That's kinda difficult to do without telling Google which page that is. Google say they don't use these URLs for any other purpose, and I'm not aware of anybody providing any evidence to the contrary.

Wow!

Ermm...

"If you want to look something up on MapQuest instead", why not *search* for Mapquest? You'll get a slew of links to them and no Google Maps to be seen.

If you go onto Google and enter a search for "Maps", it's surely not all that unreasonable for them to assume that you're looking for Google Maps? MapQuest is hit number 4 if that's what you were actually looking for - not too much of a hardship to move your mouse an extra inch down the screen is it?

Try it

BS

Like the last time this professor tried to make this story run, it's complete tosh.

Any set of search results are a subjective assessment of the relative merits of various sites compared to their best guess of what you're searching for. If it doesn't match your personal list, that's hardly a surprise.

If you don't like the results you get from Google, go elsewhere. It's not like you're paying for their service.

Hardly surprising

What's the problem?

It seems to me that Google look to see if the term entered might be better dealt with by one of their other services - Finance, Maps, Images, News etc. - and, if it does, puts a link to the other service. That way, if you want to get a stock quote you can just type CSCO into the search box on your browser (which you've chosen to point at Google), rather than having to make an special trip to the service concerned.

His argument is undermined by the fact that the CSCO search result he's so upset about clearly contains links to Yahoo Finance,‎ MSN Money‎, DailyFinance, CNN Money‎ and Reuters‎ as well as the Google service. Doing the same search on Bing or Yahoo brings back similar links to each company's equivalent service (but without the row of links to competitors).

And as to the bit about not being able to "install" other maps into Google results, does the Professor actually understand the concept of a web site? I've noticed that I'm unable to "install" my collection of favourite lolcat pictures into the Prof's own site, does that mean I can sue him over it?

Question

One solution

Pay the fixture devisers their fees, then demand a suitable sum from the FA for all the hitherto free advertising they get in newspapers, betting shops and wherever else.

You're a football league. Devising fixture lists is what you do. If you want to start charging people just to know who's playing who, maybe we'll just find something better to spend our money on than watching a bunch of overpaid chavs kicking a pig's bladder about.